On 10/11/11 23:23, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Scott Graham<scottmg@google.com> wrote:
>> Hi device-apis and webevents,
>>
>> I'm not sure what the correct protocol for this is, but it seems like
>> the gamepad and vibration APIs ought to be coordinated.
>>
>> Specifically, the vibration API assumes only one connected vibrator
>> and thus it's on "navigator" (which seems suitable for phones, etc.)
>>
>> My initial thought would be that the same Vibration Interface would
>> also appear on Gamepad, so a connected gamepad would have
>> .vibrate(time) and .vibrate([pattern]).
> This seems reasonable. One could even have a device which can,
> itself, vibrate (controlled via the navigator interface) and which can
> have gamepads hooked up to it which can vibrate (controlled via the
> gamepad interface).
>
>
>> As the DAP is set up to handle things related to vibration, could the
>> vibration spec simply add a reference to the Gamepad spec, and make
>> the addition of having Gamepad implement Vibration? (as well as
>> Navigator of course)
> Yes, that sort of reference is acceptable.
>
> ~TJ
It might be better for the gamepad spec to make a normative reference to
the vibration spec, e.g. the gamepad interface could be defined to
implement the vibration interface, see:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/#idl-implements-statements
The vibration spec looks as if it will move quite quickly along the W3C
REC track, so making such a normative reference shouldn't pose a
problem, see:
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html#dependencies-met
--
Dave Raggett<dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett